SmarterThanHick
Senior Member
- Sep 14, 2009
- 2,084
- 241
- 48
I'm sorry, do you know anything about medical schools whatsoever? Didn't think so. So why are you commenting?10% of them favor "public only" care, proving that America's medical schools are a complete and utter failure.
oh yes, cuz doctors go into medicine... not to help people, but for your money. that's why they offer complementary cigarettes and donuts when you come in - for the job security.Sorry if I don't agree with anything the majority of those greedy bastards want.
As I have a bit more interactions with the AMA than you do, let me clarify. The AMA is a group that represents doctors, using yearly dues for their purposes. About 30% of doctors are a part of the AMA, and the other 70% aren't for reasons of activism and support to this organization. That being said, the AMA is the largest voice for doctors. Don't confuse apathy with 70% of docs agreeing you.The crux of this is that most doctors do not want the Obamacare, by a margin of 2 out of 3. Not like what has been stated previouisly from the AMA. Only around 18% of doctors are a member of that group, and I'm almost positive not all of them are on board with a healthcare overhaul.
NPR? I bet the find that most PBS stations favpr public funding of, uh, the PBS.
Both of the above two quotes are just wrong. Keep in mind that Investors Business Daily is reporting on a survey conducted by Investors Business Daily. NPR is reporting on a survey conducted by Mount Sinai School of Medicine, that acquired double the amount of doctor responses. Now, which of the two sources do you think has better working knowledge of unbiased scientific research? Perhaps we can look at the questions to find out.Alrighty. NPR is a public organization, Investors is obviously more of a free-market oriented source. Each source - as could be easily predicted - makes different conclusions. How about somebody finds a third - and more 'unbiased' source? So far, it is a tie. I, for one, would like Xotoxi's input - he's a doctor after all
Mount Sinai School of Medicine, using highly trained/educated doctors, scientists, and hired survey experts, publishing their findings in The New England Journal of Medicine, the top medical journal in the country, asking:
Respondents were asked to
indicate which of three options they would most strongly support:
1. Public and Private Options: Provide people under age 65 the choice of enrolling in
a new public health insurance plan (like Medicare) or in private plans.
2. Private Options Only: Provide people with tax credits or low-income subsidies to
buy private insurance coverage (without creating a public plan option).
3. Public Option Only: Eliminate private insurance and cover everyone in a single
public plan like Medicare.
IBD/TIPP Poll refused to release their methods or even the people who administered the poll (let alone their credentials), publishing it nowhere, but asking:
Do you believe the government can cover 47 million more people and it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better?
(yes, that was a yes/no question they asked - oh and btw, the public option has no intention of insuring 47 million people)
If congress passes it's healthcare plan will you consider leaving your practice or taking an early retirement?
Now, which one of these two sources seems more credible? Which one is using blatantly biased questions with poorly defined meanings? Fox news, even though it ran with the story, stated flat out the IBD/TIPP poll was unscientific.
gg. you're done.
Last edited: